Creating liveable cities: an analysis of Kingston upon Thames' Mini Holland Programme

Copenhagen & Kingston upon Thames: Creating liveable cities: An analysis of the Mini Holland programme

Rachael Cox K1166372

Contents Introduction Mini Hollands programme for Kingston upon Thames The human scale Copenhagen: lessons in best practise Why is changing urban living so important? Kingston upon Thames: how it could emulate Copenhagenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s best practise Kingston upon Thames: applying Copenhagenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s best practises Conclusion Bibliography Appendices

Introduction: Throughout this dissertation I will endeavour to analyse Kingston upon Thames’ open spaces, cycle network, capabilities and opportunities regarding creating a green, liveable town. Using Copenhagen’s green city living with it’s open spaces and renowned cycle network as the case study upon which I am comparing and analysing Kingston upon Thames (Kingston), I will look to answer the question of whether Kingston is doing enough with the £30M funding they have recently been granted for the mini Hollands programme and whether they are creating a town for people.1 Many people aspire to live a simpler, greener life. Some cities are more conducive to that aspiration. Cities such as Copenhagen are acknowledged as the pre-eminent ‘green’ city. Their urban design plan, seemingly put in place in the 60’s largely by the then urban planner Jan Gehl, has become the blue print for eco-living for cities around the world. Jan Gehl’s practice, Gehl Architects, now travel the world advising cities and clients on how to achieve ‘mutually beneficial relationships between people’s quality of life and their built environment’.2 My initial argument for this dissertation topic was solely centred on Kingston’s existing and proposed cycle network. However, upon meeting Jan Gehl in Copenhagen in May 2014, he dismissed cycle networks as ‘just another mode of transport’ and his focus was on people and places; he is looking to create liveable cities. This made me re-assess my argument coming to the realisation that why the Netherlands and Denmark are renowned as cycling countries is incidental – it is how the cycling networks connect their residents to their open spaces, communities and nodes that make them so important. And so I re-assessed Kingston’s mini Holland programme against this criterion: is Kingston successful in connecting people and places? Kingston needs the local infrastructure to support these connections so my question is, does the mini Holland programme achieve this or at least lay down the framework for this to happen in incremental steps?

1 2

Jan Gehl, Cities For People (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2010). Gehl Architects, ‘Home - Gehl Architects’, 2015 <http://gehlarchitects.com/> [accessed 9 May 2014].

What is the Mini Hollands Programme? In 2014, Kingston Council was awarded ‘mini-Holland’ programme status by the Mayor of London3, which has the aim to make the borough as bicycle friendly as Dutch equivalents. Along with this status comes with a share of £100 million between Kingston upon Thames, Enfield and Waltham Forest with the goal to invest and transform local cycling facilities and encourage more people to cycle in and around their local borough. Additionally the investment will benefit all road users with improved street infrastructure and pedestrian facilities. Kingston’s share equates to just over £30 million over 4 years and the key aims of Kingston’s proposal are: • to improve the cycling experience for people travelling within and through the borough • to encourage more people to cycle more often • to make better use of the existing road network, so we can cope with population growth • to redesign the highway to cater for the needs of all road users and improve interaction between cyclists, drivers and pedestrians • to reduce dangers to all road users4 The mini-Holland programme proposes to improve cycling facilities in four key areas of the borough and create six new cycle routes. Projects in key areas: • a cycle link from New Malden to Raynes Park • a new public plaza outside Kingston train station • Wheatfield Way ‘Greenway’ in Kingston town centre • a riverside Boardway in Kingston town centre New • • • • • •

cycle routes: Portsmouth Road Kingston Bridge / Kingston town centre connectivity Kingston Hill / Kingston Vale Kingston to Surbiton Cambridge Road / Kingston Road Ewell Road 5

Kingston.gov.uk, ‘What Is Kingston’s Mini-Holland Programme? - Kingston’s Mini-Holland Cycling Programme - The Royal Borough Of Kingston Upon Thames’, 2015 <http://www.kingston.gov.uk/info/200355/ mini-holland_cycling_programme/1117/kingstons_mini-holland_cycling_programme> [accessed 4 March 2015]. 4 Kingston.gov.uk, ‘What Is Kingston’s Mini-Holland Programme? - Kingston’s Mini-Holland Cycling Programme - The Royal Borough Of Kingston Upon Thames’, 2015 <http://www.kingston.gov.uk/info/200355/ mini-holland_cycling_programme/1117/kingstons_mini-holland_cycling_programme> [accessed 4 March 2015]. 5 Kingston.gov.uk, ‘What Is Kingston’s Mini-Holland Programme? - Kingston’s Mini-Holland Cycling Programme - The Royal Borough Of Kingston Upon Thames’, 2015 <http://www.kingston.gov.uk/info/200355/ mini holland_cycling_programme/1117/kingstons_mini-holland_cycling_programme> [accessed 4 March 2015]. 3

Fig. 1: Kingston Context Plan “Kingston already has one of the highest rates of cycling in outer London and we will be able to give even more people the opportunity to enjoy the environmental, social, health and economic benefits of living in a Biking Borough.” Councillor Simon James, Kingston Council’s Lead Member for Transport 6

I would argue that the ‘mini Holland’ programme is not the correct moniker for the programme as it is in fact Copenhagen that is recognised as the world’s preeminent bike city (inaugural UCI Bike City 20077) which focuses on connecting people and places through interventions of green infrastructure such as cycling; aspirations which reflect the aims the mini-Holland programme. Dutch equivalents are working from the basis of having open space to begin with and a long history of cycling rather than retrofitting green infrastructure on existing towns and cities. To effectively achieve the aims as laid out in the mini Holland programme, I believe that Kingston can learn from Copenhagen’s example of enhancing public life by connecting people and places through an effective cycle infrastructure.

http://www.kingston.gov.uk/info/200355/mini-holland_cycling_programme/1117/kingstons_mini-holland_ cycling_programme/3 7 Shane Stokes, ‘Copenhagen First To Get UCI Bike City Branding | Cyclingnews.Com’, Cyclingnews.com, 2015 <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/copenhagen-first-to-get-uci-bike-city-branding> [accessed 9 May 2015]. 6

Fig. 2: Kingston town centre mini Holland proposals

Key 1:2500 at A1 Building Ancient Market Place

Cycle Projects: Kingston Station Plaza Wheatfield Way Greenway River Thames Boardway

Cycle Routes: Portsmouth Road to High Street Kingston Bridge Connectivity Cambridge Road/ Kingston Road Kingston Hill/ Kingston Vale

Local Connectivity: Gordon Road/ Canbury Park Road London Road High Street

The Human Scale “Urban life is not only café life and tourists. Urban life is what happens when people walk around and hanging out in public space. Urban life happens on the squares, on streets and in parks, on playgrounds or on a cycle trip through the city.” 8 A metropolis for People: Visions and Goals for Urban Life in Copenhagen 2015 A city full of urban life attracts residents, companies, artists and tourists creating economic growth and providing a positive environment for businesses, residents and cultural life.9 “…a varied life is an important part of a socially sustainable city. We meet other people in the city’s common spaces. A short chat on a bench or just eye contact…. these are what gives us quality of life and increase our tolerance and understanding of each other.”10 Where does this urban life take place? It takes place in the open spaces, the ‘life between buildings’11. Our inhabitation of these spaces turn them into places12 and make the places a focus for attractive urban life. This inhabitation can be accidental, incidental or deliberate - what matters is that there is space and an opportunity for the convergence of people.13 This can only happen at the pace of the pedestrian, not the pace of a car.14 It is therefore important that we design our towns and cities with this point in mind. Urban planning has a significant role in the development of a town’s infrastructure for people. In ancient times, there was little forethought or design to a town’s layout – it was largely functional and grew up around the residents’ needs. These ancient towns provide key examples of cities for people – their life was conducted outside of their dark, cramped housing; street corners became nodes; streets and squares were laid out according to movement and climatic considerations, dimensions were set out by functionality and pedestrians were valued above other modes of transport of the times. During the 1930’s there was a key shift that has had a lasting impact on our townscapes – functionalism. With the increased knowledge of medicine and the effects of light, air, sun and ventilation on healthy and physiologically suitable living, urban planners sought to change centuries of city development with design based on functionality and not aesthetics and use. ‘The requirements for a detached building oriented toward the sun and not, as they had been previously, toward the street...’ became the new design parameter.15 A worrying aspect was that squares and public spaces disappeared from the new cities and towns. This ideology seemingly took no consideration of the positive impact of public spaces on health and physiology of residents. In the 1960’s the paradigm shifted further: architectural modernism and the increasing usage of cars. Was Colin The City of Copenhagen, Technical and Environmental Administration, A Metropolis For People (Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen, 2012). 9 Urban Life is for People: The City of Copenhagen, Technical and Environmental Administration, A Metropolis For People (Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen, 2012). 10 Urban Life is for People: The City of Copenhagen, Technical and Environmental Administration, A Metropolis For People (Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen, 2012). 11 Jan Gehl, Life Between Buildings (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2011). 12 Herman Hertzberger, Articulations (Munich [u.a.]: Prestel, 2002), pp. 33. 3 Herman Hertzberger, Articulations (Munich [u.a.]: Prestel, 2002), pp. 44. 14 Jan Gehl, Life Between Buildings (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2011). 15 Jan Gehl, Life Between Buildings (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2011), pp. 43 8

Buchanan’s report, which led to the seminal book Traffic in Towns16 , part of the solution or part of the problem? Another trend was the segregation of residential and commercial places – whilst during the industrial age this was seen to offer health benefits by separation from the polluted air; now it just creates a donut effect where life occurs away from the heart of towns in the far out residential zones and largely indoors away from the heart of a town and on the streets. Routes become primarily about commuting and we lose the opportunities for convergence in urban places because there is no reason for us to be there. The distance of the commute welcomed the domination of cars, which caused more people to leave the streets. This style of design created a type of ‘desert planning’ as described by Gordon Cullen in his book Townscape.17 Whilst this thinning out of towns is no longer the norm and housing is once again packed into every available urban space, what is undeniable is that space is at a premium. This is, in part, due to the cost of properties and growing populations in towns and cities. Houses are therefore becoming smaller and denser similar to the medieval era; however, what is now missing is the urban space within our housing zones – the street corners, squares and nodes where urban life proliferates. We therefore need quality open spaces to attract urban life in order that we can continue our lives outdoors and critically, a pedestrian paced infrastructure to connect us to these open spaces and the heart of our towns.

16 17

Colin Buchanan, Traffic In Towns (Harmondsworth, Eng.: Penguin Books, 1964). Gordon Cullen, Townscape (New York: Reinhold Pub. Corp, 1961).

Copenhagen: lessons in best practice What makes Copenhagen so successful? It is a city designed for people; a city of key open spaces interwoven with a sustainable transport system – buses, metro and cycle networks – that is easy to use, affordable and a way of life. It focuses on the pedestrian pace rather than the motorised pace. It focuses on the human scale.18 This creates a vibrant urban life on the streets and in it’s open spaces. “By the 60’s American values had begun to catch on — separate isolated homes and everyone driving. The city was suffering so how could we reverse these patterns? We decided to make the public realm so attractive it would drag people back into the streets, whilst making it simultaneously difficult to go there by car.” Jan Gehl, 1992 During the 1960’s Copenhagen realised that city centre retail and commercial businesses were facing financial hardship due to the high number of cars through the city negatively impacting street trade and street life.19 They addressed this urban development trend by re-introducing a pedestrian pace and reducing the amount of cars on the street - Strøget, the cities’ main street, along with the intertwined network of squares, was converted to a pedestrian area in November 1962.20 Strøgot, highlighted in red, was the first pedestrianised street in Copenhagen. Today, the ma jority of the old city is pedestrianised, linking the zone to the surrounding nodes and transport infrastructure, for example (highlighted in blue) Norrebro station and on to Norrebrogade, a main arterial route Fig. 3: Pedestrian zone Jan Gehl, ‘The Human Scale’, 2014. Jan Gehl and Birgitte Svarre, How To Study Public Life (Washington, DC: Island Press), p. 151 20 Jan Gehl and Birgitte Svarre, How To Study Public Life (Washington, DC: Island Press), p. 151. 18

Continuing on from the success of Strøget, Copenhagen has increased the number of pedestrian streets and created an excellent, connected public transport network connecting the open spaces to the residential zones. As a liveable city, Copenhagen is a city of nodes, places that invite you to stop and linger as you traverse a bridge, walk or cycle down Nørrebrograde or leave your city office to walk to the Metro station. Copenhagen’s streets are full of soft edges that invite you to stop and take a moment to observe, interact or relax.

Fig. 4: Soft edge: a shop places a bench next to it’s display window inviting you to sit and linger and be part of it’s community

Their solution, which included creating hundreds of kilometres of cycle routes connecting these nodes and open spaces, was not done overnight. Instead it was done, and is still being done, through incremental changes based on a framework laid down in the 60’s and constant re-evaluation and studies of what makes urban open space successful for people. As discussed in Jan Gehls’ book, Life between Buildings, ‘life takes place ‘on foot’’ and the slower the speed of people, be-it in cars, on foot or on bicycles, the more lively the space. ‘A 1995 survey of street life in downtown Copenhagen reveals a quadrupling of social and

creative activities over the past two decades. The city has not grown in this period, but definitely street life has.’21 One of the key elements that distinguishes Copenhagen and it’s cycling pastime is that almost everyone cycles; commuters, shoppers, those in stilettos, with briefcases, young and old - nothing is a barrier and everyone is accommodated for – it is a way of life as natural as picking up your car keys to leave the house, Copenhageners grab their bicycle and off they go. “A good city is where there are young and old people” Jan Gehl, 21st May 2014 There are many reasons why Copenhagen’s cycle infrastructure is so successful. Gehl talks about his granddaughter at the age of 7 being able to confidently and safely walk alone to school without crossing a single road despite being in an urban environment. How is this possible? In Copenhagen, pavements and cycle routes have priority over cars .

Fig. 5: Cyclist has piority over car

Fig. 6: Pavements have priority over the road and note the width of the cycle lane

Cycling is not just a healthy, convenient mode of transport; it also reduces carbon emissions by reducing the amount of cars on the road. Copenhagen is looking to achieve a carbon neutral status by 2025 and with 47%22 of all Copenhageners commuting daily by bike they are well on their way.

21 22

Jan Gehl, Life Between Buildings (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2011), pp. 50 Jan Gehl, Interview with Jan Gehl of Gehl Architects (Gehl Architectects office, Copenhagen, 2014).

An example of a radical approach to the on-going discourse between cars and people is Nørrebrogade. Nørrebrodgade is a ma jor arterial route from the suburbs to the heart of Copenhagen, connecting people to the street life along their commute into the city. Traditionally the street life was poor; cyclists were squeezed into narrow cycle lanes, the road congested by cars and the pavements impeded by obstacles for pedestrians and cyclists. Many initiatives have been implemented to re-prioritise the road for cyclists and pedestrians with car traffic a distant third.

Fig. 7: Nørrebrodgade route - cyclists, pedestrians and buses prioritised over cars

Fig. 8: Nørrebrodgade Bridge - note the wide pavements with seating which encourage people to linger and the width of the cycle lane to the right

Today, street life is vibrant with pop up cafes and soft edges creating nodes all the way along the 2km artery inviting people to stop and linger; car traffic has fallen by 60%, and crucially, has not increased on adjacent routes as a result; bicycle traffic has increased by 20%, pedestrian traffic by 60% and bus travel times have been reduced by 10%.23 Without a doubt, the measures implemented along Nørrebrogade have positively influenced the 40,000 people who daily travel along this route by bicycle and achieve the aims as laid out in 1995 to: decrease pollution, increase bike traffic and improve the lifeblood of the neighbourhood.24 Part of the success of these types of projects is that they discovered over time that good design improves the behaviour of cyclists on the road25 and that good design includes a better infrastructure – coupled with reducing traffic speed - through separating cyclist from the cars AND pedestrians therefore giving each ‘their own space in the urban landscape.’26

Mikael Andersen, ‘Copenhagenize.Com - Bicycle Culture By Design: Nørrebrogade - A Car-Free(Ish) Success’, Copenhagenize.com, 2013 <http://www.copenhagenize.com/search?q=N%C3%B8rrebrogade> [accessed 10 May 2015]. 24 Mikael Andersen, ‘Copenhagenize.Com - Bicycle Culture By Design: Nørrebrogade - A Car-Free(Ish) Success’, Copenhagenize.com, 2013 <http://www.copenhagenize.com/search?q=N%C3%B8rrebrogade> [accessed 10 May 2015]. 25 Mikael Colville-Andersen, ‘Innovation In, Lycra Out: What Copenhagen Can Teach Us About Cycling’, The Guardian, 2014 <http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/16/copenhagen-cycling-innovation-lycra-louts-green-wave-bike-bridges> [accessed 2 February 2015]. 26 Mikael Colville-Andersen, ‘Innovation In, Lycra Out: What Copenhagen Can Teach Us About Cycling’, The Guardian, 2014 <http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/16/copenhagen-cycling-innovation-ly23

As a result, Copenhagen is acknowledged as having the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s best-behaved cyclists. Other changes include cars giving way to cyclists when turning and pedestrians and cyclists having priority at junctions. They have, however provided a structured approach to segregation and largely the cycle lanes are properly segregated from the pedestrians and motorists.

Fig. 9: Copenhagen - To turn left at an interesection you stay right and continue ahead to the opposite corner where you wait for the traffic light to change before you head left.

Fig. 9: Copenhagen - To turn right at an interesection cyclists have a priority filter lane, with its own traffic light taking priority over the car traffic.

In comparison, cycle lanes at intersections in the UK turn into feeder lanes along the left hand side of the traffic, and, if at a red light, ahead of the traffic. To turn right, you need to move into the traffic and wait in the middle of the road with traffic either side until it is safe to turn right. The system of a cycle only zone ahead of the traffic only works if you always approach an intersection at a red light.

Equally, cyclists respect the pedestrian and there are no recreational cyclists bombing down the pavements or shared space. With the proliferation of cargo bikes in Copenhagen - freight bikes that enable you to carry shopping, children or other ‘stuff’ - the demographic for taking children out and about also changes. There were many more lone men out with children in Copenhagen than you see in Kingston; one such reason is that it is easier for men to traverse the city with children in Copenhagen (this applies to females too). Men are less likely to take prams and more likely to hop on a bike with a bike seat or cargo bike. Another plus for the cargo bike is that it promotes an increase in usage of local urban open spaces – ‘I realise that unless you have the constitution of Ranulph Fiennes, cargo bikes will force you to live a more local life.’ says one mum trialling a cargo bike in north London.27 Of course, with the facilities in Copenhagen of such a high standard with public amenities always available and excellent playgrounds, Copenhageners have no reason to go home or move indoors; they can stay and use their open spaces all day therefore participating in and improving the atmosphere of the urban life which in turn, attracts more people to participate. Copenhagen also doesn’t seem to have a segregation of zones that is prevalent in the UK. Commercial and residential premises exist side by side as in pre-war cities; streets are for commuting, shopping, chatting you’re your friends, stopping to sit down – the opportunity for street life is enhanced by soft edges (an inviting façade at street level) and bridges are for more than just getting from A to B. Even the street furniture has been taken into consideration – flexible seating, minimal signage and suspended streetlights are just a few design considerations that have been initiated to ensure that people and cyclists are not impeded by a plethora of street furniture as on Kingston’s streets. Gehls summarises the main strategies for Copenhagen’s transformation to a liveable bike city as: a. All streets have cycle lanes b. Pavements and cycle lanes are equal c. Pavements go across streets d. All cycle lanes go to ma jor doors28

Kate Weinberg, ‘Cargo Bikes: Five Of The Best’, The Telegraph, 2014 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/11037184/Cargo-bikes-five-of-the-best-review.html> [accessed 13 April 2015]. 28 Jan Gehl, Interview with Jan Gehl of Gehl Architects (Gehl Architectects office, Copenhagen, 2014). 27

Why is changing urban living so important? We are at a critical juncture in urban living. Over half - 54% - of the worlds’ total population lives in cities and this is projected to rise.29 There needs to be a fundamental shift to change the way we live and to mitigate the effect of our population on the planet and on our own physical and mental health. Greening cities and sustainable living must be integral aspects of our design and planning infrastructure. There is now an industry recognised term of ‘copenhagenising’ a city – the method of how to plan for a bike city and realise the benefits of vibrant street life and urban open spaces. However this needs to be more widespread; we are not just designing cities for attractive open spaces, we are designing new ways to live as our population grows and ages. The health benefits alone of such programmes promoting cycling and pedestrianized living from a young age should sway the most ardent motorist. Observationally there are very few overweight people in Copenhagen, particularly compared to Kingston; statistics would support this observation. Current statistics for the UK are that obesity in adults is at an all time high of 24.75% (24.4. for men and 25.1 for women).30 Worryingly 27.85% of children between the ages of 4 and 11 fall into the obese category as determined by the National Child Measurement Programme (England).31 This is compared to 13.4% of adults and 18% of children in Denmark being classed as obese.32 Encouragingly, Kingston’s statistics of adult obesity (17%) and childhood obesity (15%) are lower than both the London average (21% adults and 19% children) as well as the national averages33 but clearly more could be done and a borough wide cycling programme and a ‘copenhagenised’ cycle infrastructure would be one way to improve quality of life, connect our urban open spaces and negate some of the effects of a rising urban population.

Who.int, ‘WHO | Urban Population Growth’, 2015 <http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_ trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/> [accessed 10 May 2015]. 30 Health & Social Care Information Centre, Statistics On Obesity, Physical Activity And Diet - England, 2014 [NS], 2015 <http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB13648> [accessed 8 April 2015]. 31 Health & Social Care Information Centre, National Child Measurement Programme - England, 2013-14 [NS], 2015 <http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB16070> [accessed 8 April 2015]. 32 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), Obesity Update 2014 (OECD, 2014). 33 GLA (Greater London Authority), Better Environment, Better Health, A GLA Guide For London’S Boroughs, London Borough Of Kingston Upon Thames, (London: Greater London Authority, 2014), p. 18. 29

Kingston: how it could emulate Copenhagen’s best practise Kingston, currently described as one of the safest London boroughs in which to live, is renowned for its shopping, schools, market places, access to the River Thames and London’s best parks – yet it is also known for severe traffic congestions in and around town and it’s difficult to navigate one way system. Kingston has a large percentage of commuting families who commute by car or by foot as they navigate the unattractive urban streets with it’s plethora of unnecessary street furniture to move from the hub of public transport to their homes with little engagement with the community around them. Our transport network is overcrowded, expensive and barely integrated and at the end of a long day at work there is little to attract us to stop and linger on our commute home. Unlike Copenhagen, our public transport is not cohesively linked where taxis carry bicycles and trains have bicycle carriages for no extra charge and with no time restrictions.

Fig. 10: A bicycle carriage on the Metro overland train

Currently, Kingston’s cycle network is too disparate and fragmented and not particularly safe due to poorly laid out infrastructure and heavily congested roads.

Fig. 3: Mini Holland proposal overlaid with existing conditions Current conditions show little cohesion and connectivity. Key utilitarian and recreational routes are not included in the mini Holland proposals; local community nodes are not connected to one another; schools are not connected to the proposed routes, nor are they on existing routes and key utilitarian cyle routes are still left on heavily congested roads.

Key 1:2500 at A1 Building River

Pedestrianised zones Nodes Existing main utilitarian cycle routes Existing main recreational cycle routes Kingston Train Station

Existing recreational route through the Market Place Traffic congestion Schools Areas of cycle lane to road disconnect

So how do we make Kingston a liveable city? As Copenhagen has discovered over the past 50 years, slowing down people as they traverse Kingstonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s open spaces will be the catalyst for enhanced public life and the basis for a liveable city. Creating a cohesive cycle network connecting nodes is one way to slow down to the human scale. Importantly, Gehl believes that you need to get local residents involved as people â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;demand better qualityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;34; this is something that Kingston has promised to do with public consultations for each project of the mini-Holland programme. As a Kingston resident and urban designer, I would like to see our residents engaged in their local community through a network of open spaces and connective routes. Like Copenhagen, I would like to see young children cycling to nursery school with their parents and their parents carrying on to work or to a transport node or older children cycling and walking alone to school safe in the knowledge that their route is safe and prioritises them over cars. I would want the mini-Holland programme to achieve this by creating the framework for a cohesive, connected network that would connect local residents and commuters (collectively utilitarian cyclists) to our community street life and urban open spaces.

Key 1:2500 at A1 Local schoolsnot one of them on a proposed cycle route Fig. 11: Map of mini hollands proposed routes with schools

Jan Gehl, Interview with Jan Gehl of Gehl Architects (Gehl Architectects office, Copenhagen, 2014).

Clearly, in order for this to happen in Kingston, national policy regarding the Highway Code, Councils and related professionals involved in design of the public realm need to understand the benefits of designing for a society where the car is no longer dominant. Kingston has taken initial steps towards this change in mind-set by insisting that all Council road engineers undertook the borough’s Bikeability Level 3 training to educate them on the requirements of the cycling road user.35 Education will be another key step: motorists need to be aware of cyclists’ right on the road, as do cyclists need to be aware of motorists’ rights on the road. This will need to be instigated from when people first start cycling and through the national learner driving scheme. Once Denmark had instigated these fundamental shifts in mind-set other factors come into play. Copenhagen cyclists start young, typically around 3 years old, emulating their parents who cycle, and the infrastructure is in place connecting these cyclists to where they need to go i.e. school, playgrounds, and home. To these young cyclists, cycling is inherent and there is a natural progression to continue cycling as they grow up and start commuting further afield. In fact, the ma jority of Danish children learn how to cycle before they start nursery school – it’s a basic skill on a par with learning to walk and talk.36 Statistics show that those people who cycle regularly as a child will continue to cycle into adulthood. “We know that children who cycle on a daily basis have significantly better physical fitness than other children, and are a lot less at risk of developing serious lifestyle diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and obesity. Cycling also has a positive effect on learning ability, joy of life and social well-being.” 37 To support this national attitude to cycling, nurseries and schools run a programme called Cykelleg [Bicycle Play]38 which guides parents and early year foundation carers on how to teach small children to cycle safely based on play. This is incorporated into daily school life in Copenhagen. Additionally, outside of the school environment there are facilities for children to play with bicycles. As well as the excellent public playgrounds that have free bicycles, tricycle and many other outdoor and indoor toys for children to play with, there are also specific traffic playgrounds such as the one in Faelledparken in Osterbro. This particular playground is for children ages 2-14 to learn about the rules of the road and in a fun environment with realistic traffic simulation, traffic lights, road signs, road markers, bike paths, petrol stations, and much more.

Richard Lewis, Interview with Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames’ Cycling Officer (Kingston, 2014). 36 Denmark.dk, ‘Cycling To Kindergarten -The Official Website Of Denmark’, 2015 <http://denmark.dk/en/ green-living/bicycle-culture/cycling-to-kindergarten/> [accessed 9 May 2015]. 37 Lotte Ruby and Camille Liv Andersen, ‘Danish Cyclist Federation And Danish Cancer Society: Cycling To Kindergarten - The Official Website Of Denmark’, Denmark.dk, 2015 <http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/ bicycle-culture/cycling-to-kindergarten/> [accessed 9 May 2015]. 38 Dansk Cyclist Forbund (Danish Cycling Federation), 20 Cykellege (20 Bike Games) (Copenhagen: Dansk Cyclist Forbund, 2011). 35

Crucially, the infrastructure is there to support these initiatives: pedestrian and cycling routes connect these nodes, the routes go from door to door, or, as Jan Gehl says ‘all cycle lanes connect to ma jor doors’.39 This cycling infrastructure means that the children can either be cycled to school safely in their parent’s cargo bikes or cycle to school themselves on safe, segregated, convenient and clear cycle routes. Thus, cycling, being outdoors and engaging with their local community as they experience from their bicycles at a young age becomes ingrained in them and the pattern continues and replicates through their lives. Kingston’s equivalent Bikeability programme addresses cycle training for children aged 9 and above to adulthood. The programme is intended to ‘provide the participant with the skills and knowledge to confidently ride a bike on 21st Century roads.’40 In order for Kingston to truly benefit from the Bikeability programme, I believe that the training should start earlier, even at nursery school as with the Danish programme; it should focus the training by teaching safety through play rather than proficiency and rules of the road and fundamentally there needs to be an improvement in the infrastructure to connect the school gates with their homes to allow these young cyclists to cycle safely to school either with their parents or alone. Copenhagen also learnt that their cycle infrastructure had an economic benefit. Studies in Copenhagen discovered that for every 1km a cyclist travelled, society gained $.25; for every time the same distance was driven, their was a loss of $.16c.41 For this to work, you need to enable cyclists to jump on and off their bikes. This facilitates quality of life according to Gehl.42 Trying to build iconic projects such as Lord Fosters’ proposed SkyCycle programme will likely fail – we need to realise that cyclists are part of the infrastructure of building a liveable city and need to be built into that infrastructure like pedestrians and, to a lesser extent, cars. They belong on infrastructure along the streets, cycling to work and to shops, businesses and schools.43 Creating a good cycle infrastructure would promote a renewed focus on the high street. With a cycle network where cyclists can jump on and off to engage with local street life comes opportunity for new ventures and re-stimulation of old shop fronts and street life set away from the urban hub.

Jan Gehl, Interview with Jan Gehl of Gehl Architects (Gehl Architectects office, Copenhagen, 2014). Cycle Kingston, ‘Kingston’s Cycle Training’, 2015 <http://www.cyclekingston.net/cycle_training.php> [accessed 13 April 2015]. 41 Asla.org, ‘Interview With Jan Gehl | Asla.Org’, 2015 <http://www.asla.org/ContentDetail.aspx?id=31346> [accessed 9 February 2013]. 42 Jan Gehl, ‘The Human Scale’, 2014. 43 Mikael Colville-Andersen, ‘Innovation In, Lycra Out: What Copenhagen Can Teach Us About Cycling’, The Guardian, 2014 <http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/16/copenhagen-cycling-innovation-lycra-louts-green-wave-bike-bridges> [accessed 2 February 2015]. 39

Kingston: applying Copenhagen’s best practises How do we create a city for young and old people to live side by side with one another? How can we ensure that young and old people are connected with their local community? How do we ensure that young and old people can traverse their communities safely and easily? For example, with a new cycle route along Richmond Road, an opportunity could be created to bring back some of the disused store fronts by creating a cycle café and neighbourhood hub servicing the utilitarian cyclist going in and out of Kingston as well as the recreational cyclists coming down from Richmond Park or along the River Thames. Cafes such a ‘Look Mum, no Hands’, a cycle café in central London servicing the utilitarian cyclists along their commuting route have proven to be very economically and socially viable.

Fig. 12: Disused shops along Richmond Road, a key commuting route into Kingston and one not addressed in the mini Holland programme

Fig. 12: Sketch of the entrance of Look Mum, No Hnade in Old Street london. Old Street is a key commutting route into central London from the east of London.

“A cycle network also makes simple financial common sense. The cost of 1km of cycle track is paid off in five years by the health benefits of users getting more exercise. Car traffic drops by 10% on these stretches and cycling increases by 20%. The 41% of the population who arrive at work or school by bike contribute a whopping 235m (£185m) a year to the public coffers. Re-allocating space from less cost-efficient transport forms like cars to modern, cost-effective bicycles makes sense. “44 Mikael Colville-Andersen, ‘Innovation In, Lycra Out: What Copenhagen Can Teach Us About Cycling’, The Guardian, 2014 44

This jumping on and off of bikes also needs to connect to other transport methods. Copenhagen has an excellent public transport system because it is all connected: bicycles can go in taxi’s as well as on trains at no extra cost or time restriction as in the UK. This ensures that you can go on your bike no matter your end destination. Should you not wish to cycle your entire route, you can park your bike at one of the many train station hubs.

Fig. 13: Norrobro station bicycle hub

Fig. 14: Ad hoc bicycle parking near Kingston station. Kingston station caters for maximum of 20 secure spaces for bicycles for commuters; the utilitarian town cyclist ‘makes do’ like the above.

This ‘hub’ aspect is being considered for Kingston and Surbiton train stations although worryingly, since the funding has been received, many of the proposals which won the bid are already being pared back, including the initial plans for Kingston’s superhub to be a complete car free zone with cyclists and pedestrians taking priority. During public consultations for Kingston’s first proposal of the ‘mini Holland’ programme, it became apparent that local Kingston residents are largely concerned with the safety aspect of cycling in Kingston, primarily with whether the cycle routes should be segregated, partially segregated or not segregated at all. Local residents with young families are hesitant to take to the roads with one family stating ‘It is worrying taking the children on the roads as the cycle lanes just stop.’45 Adopting Copenhagen’s approach of rules for segregation types based on traffic levels would minimise some of the uncertainty and consultation and create a consistent message across the borough. (See Appendix 2 for samples of Kingston’s existing segregation types)

Local Family, Interview with local family on bikes (Lower Ham Road, Kingston upon Thames, 2015).

Fig. 15: Copenhagen has adopted clear design paramenters for their cycle lanes. This ensures that the cycle infrastructure is consistent, easy to use and understand and therefore increases the adoption for utilitarian cyclists

This disconnection of Kingston’ current cycle route is prevalent throughout the borough. Many roads have cycle routes that have no clear purpose – they don’t connect consistently to a node or to a transport hub and often, with no warning, deposit a cyclist directly into competition with cars on the road. The result is that families and utilitarian cyclists either stick to the few safe routes available to them thus restricting their access to urban open spaces via sustainable transport, to the river paths (which too need improvement but at least are clear of cars), cycle on the pavements or against the traffic flow or don’t cycle at all.

Fig. 16: A cycle lane that ends depositing you on the corner of Richmond Road,a very busy, congested corner in heavy traffic

Fig. 17: Skerne Road development with the approaching road closed for cycle and pedestrian use only. Kingston station

Key opportunities to design a street layout for a liveable town have not been taken in recent years in Kingston with the Ancient Market Square re-development and the residential development between the River Thames and Skerne Road being prime examples. The latter is a functional road with a large volume of pedestrian traffic leading from the residential river roads and the multi-storey car parks to Kingston’s town centre and urban open spaces. Skerne Road in particular was unattractive with no street life due to unsightly surrounds, no soft edges and no quality of urban space despite the high volume of foot and bicycle traffic and it’s proximity to the town centre. Despite the dead end stopping cars from driving at speed down the road, cyclists are still competing with potholes, pedestrians and cars using the road as a temporary parking space, although there is no actual facility for parking other than in the road. The continuation for pedestrians and cyclists consists of a funnelled channel under the railway line with the cyclists being funnelled into a marginally segregated cycle line against the heavy flow of traffic. The new development consists of 100’s of apartments being built with many overlooking this road and opening

onto the street. Allegedly initial design parameters for the development were to include shops, café’s, a crèche and cycling facilities – all opportunities to ‘soften the edge’46 and create an enticing urban space. Facilities for the community such as a health and community centre have been built and yet the quality of urban space remains in the same poor state. It appears that planning parameters were ignored which makes me question whether there is a concerning precedent of proposals not being enforced by the local council to provide positive features for the greening of Kingston. Neither consideration nor budget was set aside to improve the public realm that in turn would improve the potential for urban street life and all the benefits that it brings. And this is for a development that is mere metres away from Kingston’s town centre. The result is that the development’s ‘doormat’ does not entice you to linger and therefore will typically attract a certain kind of resident, typically one who does not invest in the local community; the road has become a wind tunnel, which causes problems for cyclists; there are no trees to soften the expanse of poor quality tarmac and mixed paving and there is no improved cycle lane transition from Skerne Road to the traffic of the busy A308. An obvious solution to extend the existing pedestrianised road leading into Skerne Road has not been utilised. A prime opportunity to green our streets and make an urban space liveable has been missed.

Fig. 18: A view ot Skerne Road development now. Poor design quality, no soft edges or greening of the street mean we are now left with an uninviting wind tunnel on the doorstep of the town centre

Fig. 19: A Copenhagen street in similar proximity to the city centre showing good design quality and materials and new trees planted to green the area

In comparison, Copenhagen takes the view that ‘public spaces in new residential areas are used more when these spaces have the requisite quality.’47 The quality to which Jan Gehl refers is quality of space that makes you want to linger; that makes you take pleasure in your surroundings and to be able to converge pleasantly and safely. 48 Jan Gehl and Birgitte Svarre, How To Study Public Life (Washington, DC: Island Press). Jan Gehl, Life Between Buildings (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2011), pp. 51, par.1. 48 Jan Gehl, Life Between Buildings (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2011), pp. 51, par.3. 49 Kingston.gov.uk, ‘Creating A Great Space In A Special Place - Kingston Ancient Market Place - The Royal Borough Of Kingston Upon Thames’, 2015 <http://www.kingston.gov.uk/info/200170/kingston_town_ neighbourhood/855/kingston_ancient_market_place/2> [accessed 10 May 2015]. 46 47

This can be still be reversed for Skerne Road to a certain extent by introducing a living element to the streetscape with trees, enhancing the streetscape materials and providing flexible seating. Even these small steps have been shown to reduce the wind tunnel effect, entice people to linger and thus invite street life to blossom. The Ancient Market Place regeneration was a flagship project for the Council’s Kingston Futures initiative, who task themselves with implementing ‘a coordinated programme of regeneration and place shaping projects with a particular focus on the town centre’. 49 Despite their aims, there seem to be disconnects between this particular project and others, particularly, the mini Holland programme aims. In particular the network of places does not match the cycle routes in and around the market place with the Ancient Market Place being marked on plan as prohibited to cyclists, yet the mini Holland route leading directly to the Market Place with no alternative. One key difference to Copenhagen is that Kingston caters to all types of cyclists on our routes: the utilitarian cyclist (the predominant cyclist in Copenhagen) as well as the recreational cyclist – who is a dominant cyclist in and around Kingston today. This is due to the excellent wider open spaces we have on our doorstep such as Richmond Park and Bushey Park and the relative distance to renowned cycling landscapes further afield. The data in Appendix 1 shows the high incidence of recreational cyclists in Kingston cycling directly through the Ancient Market Place and connecting to routes taking them further afield. These cyclists are however generally seen as a nuisance to local residents as they cycle at speeds not conducive to pedestrians and put them in competition with the cars on routes that are not fit to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists or cars and cyclists. In particular, there has been no provision for them in and around the Ancient Market Place, a key thoroughfare connecting north and south Kingston, resulting in the recreational cyclists competing with the pedestrians engaging in the space. An alternative would be to direct the recreational cyclist along the adjacent Union Street and connecting with the Kingston Bridge connectivity proposal. According to a committed recreational cyclist50, recreational cyclists are comfortable on the road, do not want to be impeded by cars or pedestrians and do not want to be forced into any segregated route. They would just prefer that the attitude of motorists change to be more inclusive on the roads to cyclists. The problem as a designer is when a cyclist meets more than one criterion – a commuter who is also an athlete and treats their daily commute as their athletic outlet. Design should enable this to happen without impeding other cyclists or motorists. Presently, should such 50

Ralph Brazier, Interview with local recreational and utlitarian cyclist (Richmond upon Thames, 2015).

a cyclist choose to take the road route where they travel more swiftly, they are typically disliked by the motorists and then impeded on a segregated/ partially segregated cycle path by slower cyclists or pedestrians. The solution is to change the mindset of the motorist – the cyclist has as much right to be on the road as the car. And not just be on a tiny portion of the road tucked in to the left hand gutter – but an equal portion of the road taking ownership of the middle of the lane like a car. Equally, pedestrians need to be more aware of the cycle lanes and that they are not able to step into them without looking. This can be achieved in two ways: the cycle paths, segregated, partially segregated or not segregated need to be more visible and boundaries clearer and also, pavements for pedestrians needs to be wide enough and traversable. i.e reduction of street furniture and in good condition. Copenhagen discovered that good design improves the behaviour of cyclists on the road51 and that good design includes a better infrastructure – coupled with reducing traffic speed - through separating cyclist from the cards AND pedestrians therefore giving ‘them their own space in the urban landscape.’ 52 As a result, Copenhagen is acknowledged as having the world’s best-behaved cyclists.

“This is a very exciting moment for the borough. The mini-Holland programme will make better use of the existing road network. Moving around the borough will be easier and safer for all road users thanks to better infrastructure and by improving relations and interactions between cyclists, drivers and pedestrians.”53 Councillor Richard Hudson, Lead Member for Infrastructure, Projects and Contracts

Mikael Colville-Andersen, ‘Innovation In, Lycra Out: What Copenhagen Can Teach Us About Cycling’, The Guardian, 2014 <http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/16/copenhagen-cycling-innovation-lycra-louts-green-wave-bike-bridges> [accessed 2 February 2015]. 52 Mikael Colville-Andersen, ‘Innovation In, Lycra Out: What Copenhagen Can Teach Us About Cycling’, The Guardian, 2014 <http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/16/copenhagen-cycling-innovation-lycra-louts-green-wave-bike-bridges> [accessed 2 February 2015]. 53 Kingston.gov.uk, ‘£30M To Be Invested In Kingston ‘Mini-Holland’ Programme - The Royal Borough Of Kingston Upon Thames’, 2015 <http://www.kingston.gov.uk/news/article/239/30m_to_be_invested_in_ kingston_mini-holland_programme> [accessed 15 June 2014]. 51

Conclusion Liveable cities are more than a cycle network. Liveable cities are a network of open spaces designed for their local communities interwoven with a sustainable transport model. Liveable cities are designed for the human scale, not the car scale.54 My argument demonstrates that Kingston has an opportunity to create a cohesive framework within which to design a liveable town with the proposed mini Holland project being the lynchpin of the framework. However that cycle infrastructure needs to be more than just widening existing cycle paths and needs to focus on what is to be connected and why? Overall, whilst I recognise that Kingston’s mini-Holland programme has significant benefit for the borough and we are definitely better off with it, than without, I don’t believe that Kingston’s proposed mini Holland proposals take the what and the why into account enough. It hasn’t asked what actually needs to be connected for the community and for street life to proliferate; it hasn’t asked why we need to connect the local school children with their schools for example. The council’s initial proposal addressed many of the points discussed within this dissertation; unfortunately now that the programme status has been awarded to Kingston and plans and public consultations are underway, it is becoming apparent that too many of these proposals are being pared back: there is too much focus on the cycle network as a mere transportation network and not enough investigation and thought into the fundamental liveability changes that this programme could realise for Kingston. Whilst Kingston may be impeded by a lack of money, I believe that the vision and investigation should encompass all of these realisations and then aspects of the overall design implemented as funds become available. To address just one or two aspects of a smaller design without a cohesive framework for the borough (and not just designing to fit the overall London strategy) is short sighted and will never deliver a borough wide solution that will benefit many of the far reaching revelations of green city living that Copenhagen has realised. We need to change the mind-set of the designers, planners, policy makers and the residents – design incremental changes within a larger framework that meets the needs and future needs of the residents for a liveable city. We already have the serious cyclists thanks to the 2012 Olympic Games routes and London to Surrey races for example. We don’t need more flash proposals like the Superskyway along the railway line or a boardwalk along the Thames to attract cyclists to Kingston; we need connectivity for local residents and families and to improve the liveability of the borough. We need infrastructure put in place that would deliver our children safely to school on their bicycles; our families to playgrounds and urban open spaces and workers 54

Jan Gehl, Cities For People (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2010).

to cycle or connect to other modes of transport taking them to their places of work outside the boroughâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s boundaries. Overall, Kingstonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposal looks to connect transport routes. I believe it needs to connect nodes, which will connect people to their communities thereby creating vibrant public life in the urban open spaces of Kingston.

Bibliography Andersen, Mikael, ‘Copenhagenize.Com - Bicycle Culture By Design: The Drastic Measures Of Visionaries’, Copenhagenize.com, 2008 <http://www.copenhagenize. com/2008/01/drastic-measures-of-visionaries.html> [accessed 10 May 2015] Andersen, Mikael, ‘Copenhagenize.Com - Bicycle Culture By Design: Nørrebrogade - A Car-Free(Ish) Success’, Copenhagenize.com, 2013 <http://www.copenhagenize.com/ search?q=N%C3%B8rrebrogade> [accessed 10 May 2015] Asla.org, ‘Interview With Jan Gehl | Asla.Org’, 2015 <http://www.asla.org/ContentDetail. aspx?id=31346> [accessed 9 February 2013] Beard, Matthew, ‘Cyclists Will Be Segregated On Danger Highway By 2016’, Evening Standard, 2014, p. 18 Bendiks., Fietsinfrastructuur / Cycle Infrastructure (Rotterdam: NAI, 2013) Brazier, Ralph, Interview with local recreational and utlitarian cyclist (Richmond upon Thames, 2015) Buchanan, Colin, Traffic In Towns (Harmondsworth, Eng.: Penguin Books, 1964) Byrne, Jason, and Neil Sipe, ‘Green And Open Space Planning For Urban Consolidations – Review Of Literature And Best Practise’, 2010 Campbell, Denis, ‘Childhood Obesity At Primary School Age Twice As Likely In Poor Areas’, The Guardian, 2014 <http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/03/childhoodobesity-poor-wealthy-areas-junk-food> [accessed 10 January 2015] Colville-Andersen, Mikael, ‘Innovation In, Lycra Out: What Copenhagen Can Teach Us About Cycling’, The Guardian, 2014 <http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/16/copenhagen-cycling-innovation-lycra-louts-green-wave-bike-bridges> [accessed 2 February 2015] Crawford, J. H, Carfree Cities (Utrecht: International Books, 2000) Cullen, Gordon, Townscape (New York: Reinhold Pub. Corp, 1961)

Cycle Kingston, ‘Kingston’s Cycle Training’, 2015 <http://www.cyclekingston.net/cycle_ training.php> [accessed 13 April 2015] Cycle Law Scotland: Report On Strict Liability, 1st edn, 2015 <http://www.cycling-accident-compensation.co.uk/Research%20Report%20on%20Strict%20Liability%20for%20 SG.pdf> [accessed 13 April 2015] Dansk Cyclist Forbund (Danish Cycling Federation), 20 Cykellege (20 Bike Games) (Copenhagen: Dansk Cyclist Forbund, 2011) Dansk Cyclist Forbundet (Danish Cycling Federation), Skole Cyklings Handbook (Cycling Handbook For Schools) (Copenhagen, 2014) Denmark.dk, ‘Cycling To Kindergarten -The Official Website Of Denmark’, 2015 <http:// denmark.dk/en/green-living/bicycle-culture/cycling-to-kindergarten/> [accessed 16 March 2015] Family, Local, Interview with local family on bikes (Lower Ham Road, Kingston upon Thames, 2015) Frost, E&M, Interview with local Kingston residents (Lower Ham Road, Kingston upon Thames, 2015) Gehl Architects, ‘Home - Gehl Architects’, 2015 <http://gehlarchitects.com/> [accessed 9 May 2014] Gehl Architects, Towards A Fine City For People: Public Spaces And Public Life - London 2004 (Copenhagen: Gehl Architects, 2004) Gehl, Jan, and Birgitte Svarre, How To Study Public Life (Washington, DC: Island Press), p. 151 Gehl, Jan, Cities For People (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2010) Gehl, Jan, Interview with Jan Gehl of Gehl Architects (Gehl Architectects office, Copenhagen, 2014) Gehl, Jan, Life Between Buildings (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2011)

Gehl, Jan, ‘The Human Scale’, 2014 GLA (Greater London Authority), Better Environment, Better Health, A GLA Guide For London’S Boroughs, London Borough Of Kingston Upon Thames, (London: Greater London Authority, 2014), p. 18 Health & Social Care Information Centre, National Child Measurement Programme England, 2013-14 [NS], 2015 <http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB16070> [accessed 8 April 2015] Health & Social Care Information Centre, Statistics On Obesity, Physical Activity And Diet - England, 2014 [NS], 2015 <http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB13648> [accessed 8 April 2015] Hertzberger, Herman, Articulations (Munich [u.a.]: Prestel, 2002), pp. 33, 44 Kingston.gov.uk, ‘£30M To Be Invested In Kingston ‘Mini-Holland’ Programme - The Royal Borough Of Kingston Upon Thames’, 2015 <http://www.kingston.gov.uk/news/article/239/30m_to_be_invested_in_kingston_mini-holland_programme> [accessed 15 June 2014] Kingston.gov.uk, ‘Creating A Great Space In A Special Place - Kingston Ancient Market Place - The Royal Borough Of Kingston Upon Thames’, 2015 <http://www.kingston.gov. uk/info/200170/kingston_town_neighbourhood/855/kingston_ancient_market_place/2> [accessed 10 May 2015] Kingston.gov.uk, ‘What Are People Saying About Mini-Holland? - Kingston’s Mini-Holland Cycling Programme - The Royal Borough Of Kingston Upon Thames’, 2015 <http://www. kingston.gov.uk/info/200355/mini-holland_cycling_programme/1117/kingstons_mini-holland_cycling_programme/3> [accessed 4 March 2015] Kingston.gov.uk, ‘What Is Kingston’S Mini-Holland Programme? - Kingston’s Mini-Holland Cycling Programme - The Royal Borough Of Kingston Upon Thames’, 2015 <http://www. kingston.gov.uk/info/200355/mini-holland_cycling_programme/1117/kingstons_mini-holland_cycling_programme> [accessed 4 March 2015] Lewis, Richard, Interview with Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames’ Cycling Officer (Kingston, 2014)

Maunder, Paul, ‘Make Mine A Flat White While I Fix My Flat Tire’, Metro, 2015, p. 34 Middleton, Ellie, ‘5 New Ways To Create A New Future’, Evening Standard, 2014, p. 4 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), Obesity Update 2014 (OECD, 2014) Rogers, Richard George, and Anne Power, Cities For A Small Country (London: Faber, 2000) ‘Round Table: The Big Chill’, Ground, 2012, p. 12 Ruby, Lotte, and Camille Liv Andersen, ‘Danish Cyclist Federation And Danish Cancer Society: Cycling To Kindergarten - The Official Website Of Denmark’, Denmark.dk, 2015 <http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/bicycle-culture/cycling-to-kindergarten/> [accessed 9 May 2015] State Of The Nation’s Waistline 2015: Turning Obesity Around: A National New Year Resolution, 1st edn, 2015 Stokes, Shane, ‘Copenhagen First To Get UCI Bike City Branding | Cyclingnews.Com’, Cyclingnews.com, 2015 <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/copenhagen-first-to-getuci-bike-city-branding> [accessed 9 May 2015] The City of Copenhagen, Technical and Environmental Administration, A Metropolis For People (Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen, 2012) The City of Copenhagen, Technical and Environmental Administration, Traffic Department, Good, Better, Best: The City Of Copenhagen’s Bicycle Strategy 2011-2015 (Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen, 2011) The City of Copenhagen, The 5 Fingers Plan (Copenhagen: The City of Copenhagen, 1948) The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, A Cycling Visions For Everyone: Kingston Council’s Stage II Submission To The Mayor’s Out London Cycling Fund (Kingston upon Thames: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, 2013) The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, Cycling - The First Choice: RBK’s Expres-

sion Of Internation To The Mayor’s Outer London Cycling Fund (Kingston upon Thames: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, 2013) The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, Cycling Strategy (Kingston upon Thames: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, 2014) Weinberg, Kate, ‘Cargo Bikes: Five Of The Best’, The Telegraph, 2014 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/11037184/Cargo-bikes-five-of-the-best-review.html> [accessed 13 April 2015] Who.int, ‘WHO | Urban Population Growth’, 2015 <http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/ situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/> [accessed 10 May 2015]

Images Fig. 1: Kingston Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Mini Holland Proposal Context Plan Fig. 3: Tourist map from Copenhagen Fig. 9: Tourist cycle leaflet from Copenhagen Fig. 15: Copenhagenize Infographic of the design paramenters of cycle lane segregation Photographs and sketches: all authors own

||||||| | |||||||| ||| |||| | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | |

||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||

| | | | | |

||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||

|||| || |||||||||||||||||||||

||||| |||| |||||

* Recreational Cyclist: Cycling for sport/ lycra clad/ road bikes/ cycling for speed Utilitarian Cyclist: Cyling for transport/ commuting/ running errands/ around town This analysis breaks down the users of a key shared urban space in each city/ town. In Kingston, the recreational cyclist is dominant (incidentally in an area where cycling is prohibited) whereas in Copenhagen, utilitarian pedestrians seem dominant. Incidentally, the use of bicycles in shared space in Copenhagen is less than I would have thought. On further research, it appears that the cycle networks are used to connect the utilitarian cyclists to nodes at which time they park their bicycles and traverse on foot.

Appendix 2: Examples of Kingstonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing cycle lane segregation:

Fig. 14: A cycle lane with full segregation from cars and partial segregation, with a half dropped curb, from pedestrians

Fig. 15: The downside to partial segregation is that pedestrians often ignore it in areas where the pavement is not wide enough for the volume of people

Fig. 17: Full segregation from cars and partial segregation, with a half dropped curb, from pedestrians. Here the pavement is wide and easy to traverse giving pedestrians adequate space to not impede the cyclist

Fig. 19: A partially segregated cycle lane with raised paving stones between the road and cycle lane, ends suddenly, depositing the cyclist onto a narrow pavement

Fig. 18: A cycle lane with no segregation from traffic, and, in this case, going against the heavy flow of traffic. For a utilitarian cyclist, this is the least ideal scenario

Fig. 16: Kingstonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Ancient Mark Place - Shared space between cyclists and pedestrians and the occassional car. Unfortunately in Kingston the recreational cyclist is dominant and goes at a speed not conducive to pedestrains

Appendix 3: Statistics comparisons Copenhagen Population: 1,246,611 urban population 2014 Renowned for: open spaces, urban street life, cycle infrastructure, healthy living and endeavouring to be carbon neutral by 2025 Cycling population percentages: 47 % of all Copenhageners commute to work or study by bike. 35 % of all who work in Copenhagen – including people who live in the suburbs and neighbouring towns but work in Copenhagen - commute to work by bike. 25 % of all families with two kids in Copenhagen have a cargo bike they use to transport the kids to kindergarten and for grocery shopping etc. Only 29% of Copenhageners own a car Awards: 2015 Happiest people in Europe (Eurostat) 2014 World’s Smartest City (World’s Smartest Cities Award) 2014 European Green Capital Award (European Environment Comission) 2014 World’s Greenest City (GGEI 2014) 2014 No. 1 on Top 10 Healthiest Cities (CNN) 2013, 2008 Most Liveable City (Monocle Magazine) 2013 World’s Happiest People (World Happiness Report 2013) 2008-2011 Inaugural Bike City Award 2008 (International Cycling Union) Kingston upon Thames Population: 166,793 borough 2013 Renowned for: leafy suburb in outer London, shopping, excellent schools, affluent area, proximity to Thames, Richmond Park and Bushey Park Cycling population percentages: 3.9% of all trips in the borough are made by bike – second highest mode share of cycling in outer London Use of motor vehicles is 6 per cent above the Greater London average On average 378,000 trips per day are made by people originating in Kingston upon Thames